Tom Tancredo's Wall [turn(S) the United States into the world's largest gated community.]

Wall Street Journal ^ | 12/29/05 | Review & Outlook

[harpu]

"We have a supply and a demand problem. The supply problem is coming across the border. We are in this bill doing something very specific about that with the inclusion of the amendment, with the passage of the amendment, to build some barrier along at least 700 miles of our southern border. I hope we continue with that, by the way, along the entire border, to the extent it is feasible, and the northern border we could start next." -- Rep. Tom Tancredo (R., Colo.)

So there you have it. Tom Tancredo has done everyone a favor by stating plainly the immigration rejectionists' end-game -- turn the United States into the world's largest gated community. The House took a step in that direction this month by passing another immigration "reform" bill heavy with border control and business harassment and light on anything that will work in the real world.

For the past two decades, border enforcement has been the main focus of immigration policy; by any measure, the results are pitiful. According to the Migration Policy Institute, "The number of unauthorized migrants in the United States has risen to almost 11 million from about four million over the past 20 years, despite a 519% increase in funding and a 221% increase in staffing for border patrol programs."

Given that record, it's hard to see the House Republican bill as much more than preening about illegal immigration. The legislation is aimed at placating a small but vocal constituency that wants the borders somehow sealed, come what may to the economy, American traditions of liberty or the Republican Party's relationship with the increasingly important Latino vote.

-big giant snip-

...At some point, the president of the United States will have to get behind the Statue of Liberty or Tom Tancredo's wall.

[SC33]

First of all, I have not seen any xenophobic comments on this thread whatsoever. Not everybody who believes in tighter border controls is white, or racist.

Second, if you truly believe in erecting a fence and enforcing immigration laws, why do you constantly attack people who argue for that very thing?

Thirdly, you can argue that millions of illegals is a good thing for this country, but you would be in the minority. This is a democracy, and in theory our policy should be detremined based on the will of the majority, not the beliefs of the elites.

What is a "pitchforker"? From what I can tell, a "pitchforker" is a patriot who will not compromise his/her principles, and one who believes in tough border security.

You probably do have a point that foreign workers do provide benefits to our economy. That is why I support a TEMPORARY guestworker program. If the President supports or puts forth a TEMPORARY worker program with with no path citizenship, for that would really defeat the point of a TEMPORARY program, I and many others would support it. However, I would only support it if it came with a real attempt at enforcement. That means build the fence, hire more BP agents, and start enforcing employer sanctions.

[mthom]

Annexing mexico (which will never happen) would give democrats a permanent majority. A North America unified like the EU is, sadly, very likely.

[chronic_loser]

WAMEX,CHASE,Wells Fargo,Bank of America all give loans to illegals and mortgages for housing too.

e put paper with WF and BOA and you cannot get a loan with a Taxpayer ID only. The only bank that does that which I know of is Banco Popular in TX, and we don't write for them.

If a person hands me a social (actually, I don't write many of the loans myself), I am simply going to put it down and send it in. The idea that I am going to go to the next room and try and call some bureaucrat at Social Security (who have THREE DIFFERENT TAX ID numbers for me and have not been able to get their act together on that for 5 years now) to "confirm" something shows that you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

However, most of our loan and insurance stuff is "mature" business. Almost all of what I do is trade people's money. I have a couple of managed funds. I take 30-50 per cent of your profits (my clients scored 68, 32, and 13 percent gains last year after I took my cut), and that is how I make my money. The insurance and mortgages are really just trolling grounds to pick up customers with money, and it's for damn sure that what hispanic clients don't have $15,000 to let me trade (minimum amount I will accept) for them. In fact, anyone who thinks you can make money off the hispanic or black clientele in any city is crazy, if you don't adopt big fees as part of your processing procedure. We don't want to do that (it is not the kind of office we are), so the stuff we do for them is really more on a "we will help you" basis. We don't run big ads in the yellow pages, we don't "loan you money till payday." and we don't put out a sign saying "SE HABLA ESPANOL."

[WatchingInAmazement]

If you want to get serious about illegals, start with the part of the goverment which already has all the record keeping resources in place, not lay some new burden on businessowners.

What do you suppose that the "burden" will be for employers and the kind of bureaucracy it will take to handle you lauded "guest worker program" for 20 million illegals. The one in place now can't find 3.6 MILLION visa overstays roaming around our neighborhoods now. Oh, they did find one...Mr. Rapalo.

[chronic_loser]

Don't try to wrap yourself in an anti-statist flag. Don't try to pretend you are a conservative. You are not fooling anyone.

If being a conservative means marching in lock step with people like you, then no, I am not a conservative. What is more, I have no desire to become one.

This leaves me in a quandary. I am a fanatical free market advocate. I have never voted democratic in my life. I argued so vociferously with a philosophy professor on a number of topics that he called me into his office and paid me a backhanded compliment of saying "you have one of the brightest and narrowest minds I have ever seen, but I am really tired of you trying to convert me away from progressive thought." To which I replied, "I just can't help it Dr. XXXX, I have an inherent aversion to untidy thought. I have to argue with you or drink to alleviate the stress. Do you want my alcoholism on your conscience the rest of your life, or shall I buy you a beer and you just let me bitch at you in class?" I was one of the founders of a local metro right to life organizations back when the only people standing up for this were the Roman Catholics (1978). I was actually fired from my job(I was planning to quit anyway) for mocking "sensitivity training"...see here for the free republic post on that story. I have spoken at a number of conservative functions, and introduced Republican Congressmen and Senators to planned fundraisers.

I am overwhelmed with shame to know that despite all that effort (and more) that I am not a "true" conservative. What is more, I do not know how to affiliate myself. Clearly I am not "conservative" because I don't advocate deporting 14 million plus people as the only solution to our border problem. What is more, I am clearly a heretic because I believe some of these folks are (dare I say it?) "GOOD PEOPLE" (Gasp!). Clearly nothing remains for me but to be burned at the stake. Perhaps you could preside over my excommunication and expulsion from "conservativism"? Wouldn't that be dandy?

[chronic_loser]

First of all, I have not seen any xenophobic comments on this thread whatsoever. Not everybody who believes in tighter border controls is white, or racist.

You are correct. No one here has been. To my knowledge, I have never seen you post in that manner in any thread. Let's just leave it there, if we could.

Second, if you truly believe in erecting a fence and enforcing immigration laws, why do you constantly attack people who argue for that very thing?

Because they are assholes. No other way to say it. I make it a point to say that I am pro fence. The big difference is that I want a fence to CONTROL who we let in, not to stop them from coming. Anyone who is on free republic immigration threads more than 10 minutes can see that there is a huge difference between 1) Those who are against immigrants 2) Those who are ambivalent..., that is, they may be pro immigrant in other circumstances, but the loopy out of control border situation has made them say STOP IT ALL, at least for right now, and 3) very small group, including me, who wants a fence more for registering who comes in than shutting down the flow. Although most freepers are, I believe, in category #2, there are many even there who make the most asinine charges against those in group 3. I don't know if they are truly too stupid to understand what we say or deliberately choose to misrepresent it.

Thirdly, you can argue that millions of illegals is a good thing for this country, but you would be in the minority.

Of course not! The question is not "is it good that they are here illegally?" People who put words in my mouth that way should not be surprised when they are mocked and ridiculed. The questions are: 1)"Is it good that they are HERE?" and THEN 2)"if it is good," (you can see my prejudice in the question) " should we allow them to become legal?"

I believe that they should be punished for jumping the border, but that the only punishment is NOT expulsion, but rather a heavy fine, and some type of further penalties to get on the road to citizenship.

I can say after reading your post a little up that I could definitely live with your proposals, even if we might not agree on everything. I can also say that the idea of a guest worker program is not well received on FR at all.

[mthom]

"We already pay your damn health insurance, your disability, your life insurance, your retirement, half your Social Security, your medicare, and withold your income taxes, making us the bagmen for the IRS. I pay over 4,000 a year just for an accountant to track the stuff I take out for the employees I have, and I am a small, small company. I had to file through (so far) 15 workers to find 4 who were worth a shit, and one of them is a naturalized citizen from El Salvador. Most of the workers were stupid, lazy, entitled, privileged, and worthless, and that is when they showed up sober and on time. I am really sick of the crap I hear from freepers claiming that there are lots and lots of good, qualified hard working Americans who would happily do the jobs of illegals. It is simply a lie."

"I had to file through (so far) 15 workers to find 4 who were worth a shit."

Ugh After reading that Im not surprised you have a hard time finding and keeping good employees. People that hate and look down on the people that work for them often do. Thats the free market at work.

[SC33]

Though we disagree about many things, I think we share some common ground here. And I do apologize for some of my words earlier, I just get very worked up about this topic. I also thank you for acknowledging that I do not post any xenophobic comments.

As far as where we disagree, I do believe that foreign workers, in some cases, are beneficial to the economy here. I am in favor of a tightly enforced TEMPORARY worker program. I can understand why many people here are against, or at the very least skeptical of this type of program. I myself am a bit skeptical, because I question whether it will actually be enforced. I am 100% against the McCain/Kennedy, but, atleast in theory, somewhat supportive of the Kyl/Cornyn Bill, it it were truly enforced. I, like many if not most others, am very confused about which bill, if either, the President supports. If he supports a TEMPORARY guestworker program that pays reasonable wages to foreign workers when no Americans are willing or able to do the job, and the plan does not entail a path to citizenship as McKennedy does, I will support his efforts wholeheartedly.

As to where we are in agreement, I too support a fence and tougher enforcement. I am not in favor of forcing businesses into bankruptcy with fines at this moment because they hire illegals. That would be unfair. I do not, however, believe it would be unfair to do so if we started enforcing employer sanctions consistently and nationally. The market forces wwould then take care of themselves. And if these businesses could truly not find American workers, I would support their wishes to find temporary workers. I also do not dispute that many of these people are good people. Indeed many are very hard workers, and men and women of great faith. I respect that. What often turns me off to their plight is the work of groups like MALDEF and La Raza who clearly have ulterior motives, that are often based in racial superiority and political opportunism. I would be much less cynical and resentful if these groups were not the way they are.

I will also tell you one of the reasons I do not support a path to citizenship for illegals. We need to get at the root of this problem, and the problem lies in Latin American countries(primarily Mexico). It is my opinion that we should do all we can to make life better economically, politically, and socially in these nations, rather then importing the population here. By creating a temporary worker program, we can allow for people to come here and gain valuable skills, and at the same time be able to send more money back home, because they would be making better wages. If we just allow them to become citizens here, it will not help solve the core problem here. I truly believe a TEMPORARY worker program is in the best interests of everybody involved.

It is also hard for me to accept the idea of gangs in this country, many made up of illegal immigrants, reaking so much havoc on the streets and in the towns of this nation. If I were a politician, I would find it very hard to explain to a family why their son or daughter was killed by an illegal alien who had been deported nine times previously.

Furthermore, there are political ramifications to consider. I have seen many polls that show that almost 50% of Hispanics favor tougher enforcement. More than that, vast majorities of African Americans, Whites, and legal immigrants support it as well. If framed correctly, I also think tougher enforcement combined with a truly TEMPORARY worker program would be of great benefit socially, economically, and politically.

[edcoil]

Tom's idea is century's old. Check out the Great Wall of China...

[raybbr]

...At some point, the president of the United States will have to get behind the Statue of Liberty or Tom Tancredo's wall.

It should be clear to everyone now that for Bush there are no walls.

"Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande" he's fond of saying. It may be true but certainly for millions of people honoring another man's possessions (this country which belongs to Americans) does stop at the border - with tacit approval by Bush.

If the following quote doesn't tell you where Bush stands and has stood for over five years now, you are not paying attention. I know some of you are tired of seeing this but I also know that every time I post it someone sends me an e-mail or posts how had they known about Bush's disdain for the "old America" in favor of the "new America" where spanish becomes the lynch pin of his legacy, we would not have voted for him.

Bush has decided to end debate over this issue. This is not the America we want. There should be debate. And, since this is our country we should have a say in who comes here. It is not up to Bush. Yet, he has decided for all of us.

We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000.

My Bush Epiphany:

(The article says it for me)

Let us be clear that W. is not (as Republican politicians including Reagan have done for decades) celebrating immigrants from diverse backgrounds on the assumption that they are becoming part of our culture and way of life. On the contrary, he is applauding the expansion and the increasingly dominant role of the Hispanic culture and the Spanish language in this country. He is explicitly welcoming the very things that are making America less and less like its historical self and more and more like Latin America.

[chronic_loser]

Ugh After reading that Im not surprised you have a hard time finding and keeping good employees. People that hate and look down on the people that work for them often do.

Dear Sir:

After much review and careful consideration, we regret to inform you that we have no available positions which match your qualifications at this time. We will keep your resume on file for six months and if an appropriate opening becomes available, we will be in contact.

Sincerely,

Hateful old looker downer (who has two employees who make more than I do!)

Laissez Faire and Happy New Year.

[Alberta's Child]

Immigration ping.

[rmlew]

You presume that a round-up is the only solution.
A far better one is to close the border to prevent more illegals and then go after companies taht hire them. If it becomes economically and legally perilous to hire illegals, then companies will stop doing so.

[rmlew]

Why should we incur massive debt to annex a large forign population, lowering our standard of living?

[Czar]

"Pretty damn good article..."

Only if you happen to be a pro-illegal alien supporter who cares very little for American border security, national sovereignty, or American culture, customs,and traditions. These are all loyal American conservative values.

Anyone who supports the well known WSJ editorial policy on immigration is an open borders/cheap labor lobby enthusiast with very little regard for the conservative values mentioned above.

[Czar]

"...but voluntary registration with an exit date certain is practical."

You can't be serious.

[dagnabbit]

Our stammering Saudi-Prince smoocher will bring more of the third world into our homeland than any President in history. His gross negligence will bring more Islam into our country than any other administration.

[junta]

These whores at the WSJ should be honest their brand of "capitalism" is a ponzi scheme that relies largely on demographic increase on a massive scale and preferably people who work off the books but buy at Fortune 500 owned outlets, and this makes the productivity numbers look good.

[Dan Evans]

I am a fanatical free market advocate.

I see what your problem is. A free market trumps everything else. You are willing to sacrifice the future of your country on the altar of free trade.

What is more, I am clearly a heretic because I believe some of these folks are (dare I say it?) "GOOD PEOPLE" (Gasp!).

Some of them? How many bad people do you think we can allow into this country before it begins to decompose?

You have completely ignored the issue of what the Hispanic vote will do to this country. I think you know what will happen but that sensitivity training must be kicking in because you don't want to talk about these politically incorrect topics. Either that or you simply have no rational argument to debate the subject.

Your reasoning simply doesn't wash. You claim to be against liberalism but you advocate a soft approach to illegal immigration that will tip the scales towards a unstoppable slide to the left. You think the sensitivity training is out of control now. Wait till they take over.

[Huck]

Good posts, but dont just blame the WSJ. That doofus in the White House is right there with em.